"J'accuse", by someone who truly cared for Charlie

I based that assumption on the fact that (as far as I am aware) so far nobody here had posted about this particular topic, which I thought was because we don't like to state the bleeding obvious.
My OP was just intended to vent about the horrible side effects of uninformed sections of the public (including pope and Trump) giving their cent's worth. The thought that, as a result of that vitriolic witch hunt, parents of other children treated at the same time in the same hospital would begin to doubt whether their child actually was in the safest of hands, made me sick.

Well indeed. Only the worst kind of judgemental arsetribble would start labelling any of those involved as "evil" based on the partial information in the media.

Are you still here?

When you went whining to Jenny about my behaviour, I thought you said that you were standing down from this thread.

When I sent a private message to Jenny I said I felt that reasonable discussion was not possible because of your approach, and she responded suggesting that I was misinterpreting the situation and on reflection I agreed. But with the above post you have proven me right and she wrong.

I also expressed concern that you had publicly defamed someone who was not present to defend themselves. That's one of the differences between you and me - I'm happy to tell you what a disappointing degenerate person you are to your face, where as you are a typical cowardly keyboard warrior who gets his rocks off defaming people behind their backs. But I've addressed that - I have emailed the Doctor's office with a link to the post in which you have publicly implied he has violated medical ethical standards. At least that brings it out into the open.

I finally expressed concern over your potty-mouth profanity. You are usually the first to introduce vile language into discussions, and some of us feel inappropriate. It is interesting that the right-honourable member for Netherlands south complained when I responded in kind, but was silent on your post, showing the lack of even handedness which was the only other element of my private message to Jenny - a message which she seems to have distributed to every tom dick and arsewipe in her mailbox. That's quite amusing.

I finally expressed concern over your potty-mouth profanity. You are usually the first to introduce vile language into discussions, and some of us feel inappropriate. It is interesting that the right-honourable member for Netherlands south complained when I responded in kind, but was silent on your post, showing the lack of even handedness which was the only other element of my private message to Jenny - a message which she seems to have distributed to every tom dick and arsewipe in her mailbox. That's quite amusing.

PDR

Just to be even handed here - Jenny would generally point out to the subject of the PM they need to wind their neck in a bit , so the fact that dr.bob knows of your PM is nothing to be concerned about.

I shared the relevant portion of your PM with other moderators, as an issue of dispute such as this is something moderators need to be aware of. And as barbados says, when one poster complains about another, I generally communicate with that other poster about the subject of the complaint. I don't, of course, distribute the content of pms to anybody who doesn't need to know them.

Just to be even handed here - Jenny would generally point out to the subject of the PM they need to wind their neck in a bit , so the fact that dr.bob knows of your PM is nothing to be concerned about.

I have no problem with Jenny sharing my views with Bob as he was their subject for precisely that reason. I was surprised and disappointed when the contents of the PM were used in an attack by 'yorz. I felt that inappropriate.

I was also surprised and disappointed when two of the alleged moderators started a flame war in a thread with posts asking why I was still here. That should surely be inappropriate behaviour in a moderator? Or is this just another example of different rules of behaviour for the favoured few?

I also expressed concern that you had publicly defamed someone who was not present to defend themselves. That's one of the differences between you and me - I'm happy to tell you what a disappointing degenerate person you are to your face, where as you are a typical cowardly keyboard warrior who gets his rocks off defaming people behind their backs. But I've addressed that - I have emailed the Doctor's office with a link to the post in which you have publicly implied he has violated medical ethical standards. At least that brings it out into the open.

Not living in the UK I'd never heard of this case, so I've not bothered much with this thread. Having read this bit, I decided to google this Doctor, and given that the first page of results is almost exclusively headlines of news articles questioning his ethics, both medical and financial, I'd suggest that dr.bob is the least of his worries.

I also expressed concern that you had publicly defamed someone who was not present to defend themselves. That's one of the differences between you and me - I'm happy to tell you what a disappointing degenerate person you are to your face, where as you are a typical cowardly keyboard warrior who gets his rocks off defaming people behind their backs. But I've addressed that - I have emailed the Doctor's office with a link to the post in which you have publicly implied he has violated medical ethical standards. At least that brings it out into the open.

Not living in the UK I'd never heard of this case, so I've not bothered much with this thread. Having read this bit, I decided to google this Doctor, and given that the first page of results is almost exclusively headlines of news articles questioning his ethics, both medical and financial, I'd suggest that dr.bob is the least of his worries.

I'd suggest that some of it is down to a misunderstanding of the libel laws. Looking back it would seem that there were no assertions about the doctor per se, there was an opinion - but in order for it to be libel, what is written has to be untrue, and I would suggest that what was written was true - dr.bob does actually believe what he says - had he not qualified it with stating it as opinion only, then there may be some shaky ground.
What is more pertinent is the behaviour of the administrator, and one of the moderators, and that is where I find myself in agreement with PDR, it is correct that should a claim, such as PDR's be made to one of the moderators - indeed Jenny is possibly one of the best moderators I have come across - it is discussed with the moderation team. But for others to act on that information in the way they did is wholly wrong, and it put Jenny in a very difficult situation.
The comments made, post the complaint, serve no purpose other than to flame, and that was done knowingly. It is not the behaviour that is becoming of a moderator, or and administrator, and I woukd suggest both of them actually owe Jenny an apology for putting her in this difficult situation.

Now, perhaps someone could kindly refer suze back to my suggestion why comments were blocked on the Guardian website, looking back at the last couple of posts, it would appear that was the correct decision ;)

When I sent a private message to Jenny I said I felt that reasonable discussion was not possible because of your approach, and she responded suggesting that I was misinterpreting the situation and on reflection I agreed.

On reflection you agreed that reasonable discussion was possible, so you chose to add a post which contributed nothing apart from labelling me a "judgemental arsetribble."

You and I clearly have very different ideas of what constitutes "reasonable discussion." Which might explain a lot.

I don't want to go down the legal rabbit-hole on this, but there are a few pertin ent points. In 2009 the High Court (Mr Justice Eady, Smith vs ADVFN and others) determined that defamation in a public internet discussion (forums, chat rooms etc) could be considered as slander as well as or instead of libel. Also an honestly-held opinion is only non-defamatorywhere it is based on a robust foundation and any "reasonable person" would have formed the same opinion based on that sound foundation.

Whether that applies in this case would be for a court to decide, but as ever the burden of proof lies with the alleged defamer (the "burden inversion" for which defamation law is famed). If I was to say "It is my opinion that Mother Theresa was a child-abusing despot and a front for the mafia" then the only reason why it would NOT be actionable would be that you cannot libel or slander the dead (unless I could show a robust basis for both opinions, which I can't).

But that wasn't my purpose in sending the email - it was simply that if Bob wants to express that grave opinion I feel he should say it to the man's face rather than hiding behind the anonymity of a keyboard. And before anyone drags up remarks I have made about Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt the answer is yes, I have made those or similar remarks to their faces in public at election events as both are local MPs (Mr Hunt is actually my own MP, which is a source of much embarrassment).

As for this bit:

Barbados wrote:

What is more pertinent is the behaviour of the administrator, and one of the moderators, and that is where I find myself in agreement with PDR, it is correct that should a claim, such as PDR's be made to one of the moderators - indeed Jenny is possibly one of the best moderators I have come across - it is discussed with the moderation team. But for others to act on that information in the way they did is wholly wrong, and it put Jenny in a very difficult situation.
The comments made, post the complaint, serve no purpose other than to flame, and that was done knowingly. It is not the behaviour that is becoming of a moderator, or and administrator, and I woukd suggest both of them actually owe Jenny an apology for putting her in this difficult situation.

I wholeheartedly agree with every word of that, something which is rather rare between Barbados and me...

When I sent a private message to Jenny I said I felt that reasonable discussion was not possible because of your approach, and she responded suggesting that I was misinterpreting the situation and on reflection I agreed.

On reflection you agreed that reasonable discussion was possible, so you chose to add a post which contributed nothing apart from labelling me a "judgemental arsetribble."

You and I clearly have very different ideas of what constitutes "reasonable discussion." Which might explain a lot.

I quite agree, which is why PDR's inflammatory comment made me arrive at the end of my (very long) tether.

I will happily admit that my post above is not the kind of thing I'd particularly want to read on "a grown up forum." Maybe you could advise me on a better way of dealing with someone calling you a "judgemental arsetribble."

I think you can see historically that I have had one or two run ins with PDR, and we have travelled to the end of each other's tether on more than one occasion.
I'd challenge you to find a similar outburst from each other.

As I suggested, maybe a time out would have been a more appropriate course of action.
(By the way grown ups know how to disagree with each other - as I suggested swearing is not an issue, shout if you like. The comment you made was both childish, and agressive - not the sort of thing expected here)

For the record, what I posted wasn't an outburst. I was genuinely surprised that someone who said he was going to stand down from the thread was posting to it again within hours.

However, I would have happily let that slide if he had decided to engage with a reasonable discussion. Instead I was disappointed, though not surprised, to find that he simply chose to be personally offensive towards me and not contribute anything to the discussion. That caused be to be rather more brusque with him that I would normally be.

For the record, if I was being childish and agressive, I'd've said something along the lines of "I can only suggest you use your uninformed, ill-considered and just plain brainless ramblings as a suppository. At least then the words can return to the orifice from whence they came."